The court said it could not approve the agreement because some key terms of the deal had not yet been implemented.
The case came up before the court after both parties informed the judge that they had reached an out-of-court settlement. Such settlements are common in legal disputes and are meant to help parties resolve issues without going through a full trial.
Once a settlement is reached, it is usually presented to the court for adoption so that it becomes legally binding.
However, in this case, the court noted that the settlement agreement was not ready for adoption. According to the judge, important conditions outlined in the agreement had not been fulfilled, making it premature to formally recognize the deal.
As a result, the court decided to defer the matter until the required steps are completed.
Peter Salasya, who represents Mumias East constituency, has previously been involved in a legal dispute with the NCIC. The commission is a constitutional body mandated to promote national unity and address issues related to hate speech, ethnic discrimination, and cohesion among communities in Kenya.
While details of the specific issues that led to the settlement were not discussed in court during this session, the involvement of NCIC suggests the matter touches on concerns within its mandate.
The judge emphasized that a settlement agreement must be fully complied with before it can be adopted by the court. This includes meeting all obligations agreed upon by both parties.
Failure to do so, the court noted, could undermine the integrity of the legal process and the purpose of settlements.
Lawyers representing both Salasya and the NCIC told the court they were still working on implementing the outstanding terms.
They asked for more time to ensure that all conditions are met before the agreement is presented again for adoption. The court granted this request and set a later date when the matter will be mentioned again.
By deferring the adoption, the court made it clear that compliance is not optional. Settlement agreements are treated seriously under the law, and parties are expected to act in good faith. Only after full compliance can the court step in to formalize the agreement.
The decision means that the case remains open for now. Until the settlement is adopted, the court retains oversight of the matter.
This ensures that both parties remain accountable and that the agreement, once adopted, reflects actual actions taken rather than promises yet to be fulfilled.
Observers say the ruling sends an important message about accountability, especially for public officials. Members of Parliament, like all citizens, are subject to the law and must meet legal requirements when resolving disputes.
The case will return to court once the outstanding terms have been implemented. At that point, the judge will review the agreement again and decide whether it can be adopted as an order of the court.
For now, the court’s decision highlights the importance of following due process and ensuring that legal agreements are not only signed but also acted upon before receiving judicial approval.
Post a Comment